NEW ATHEISM: More misunderstandings

As promised the continuation on addressing what I a number of misperceptions of New Atheism and New Atheists.

Statements such as "a lot of their (red: religions’) assertions are provable false and must be discarded by reasonable people" can only come from a fanatical mind.”

Statements such as these are common-place both in standard conversation and more specifically in science, it seems unreasonable to claim that one is a fanatic for voicing an opinion that is consistent with the evidence provided by our scientific community. At worst, the sentence can be accused of being a generalisation, but I digress…

Even if my assertion where to be false there is no reason to presuppose that I am a fanatic for claiming most religious assertions to be false (I could merely be misinformed). However, I happen to be correct in my statement as Victor Stenger shows when he takes the Judeo-Christian God through scientific testing in “God – The Failed Hypothesis”. Stenger summarises his approach:

By dealing in terms of models of God that are based on human conceptions, we avoid the objection that the “true” God may lie beyond our limited cognitive abilities. When I demonstrate that a particular God is rejected by the data, I am not proving that all conceivable gods do not exist. I am simply showing beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with the specific, hypothesized attributes does not exist. Belief aside, at the very minimum the fact that a specific God does not agree with the data is cause enough not to assume the existence of that God in the practices of everyday life. (Stenger 2008, 228-229).

I invite the reader to read the book and consider each proof in detail but to summarise some main points that show the religious tenets of most major faiths to be demonstrably false (below is summarised from Stenger 2008, 230-231):

1. The universe looks as it should look in the absence of design
2. Human memories and personalities are determined by physical processes and no nonphysical or extraphysical powers of the mind can be found nor do evidence for an afterlife exist
3. No independent evidence exists for any reported miraculous events and most of the important biblical narratives never took place
4. No violation of physical law were required to produce the universe, its laws or its existence rather than non-existence and it bears no imprint of a creator
5. The universe is not congenial to human life, is tremendously wasteful of time, space and matter and is mostly composed of particles in random motion
6. No claimed revelation has ever been confirmed empirically while many have been falsified. No claimed revelation contains information that could not have been already known to the person making the claim
7. Evidence shows that morality and human values are defined by humans for themselves. Believers and nonbelievers agree on a common set of values and morals. Nonbelievers behave no less morally than believers
8. The existence of evil, and particularly gratuitous suffering, is logically inconsistent with an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent God

To add one of the simple examples given in the book: “If praying worked, the effects would be objectively observed. They are not.” Therefore we can rule out a personal God that answers prayers.

Believers will attempt to dismiss this evidence on the grounds that science cannot account for supernatural phenomenon. This is a diversion: “…the God of each of the three great monotheisms plays such an important role in in the working of the universe and in the lives of humans that the effects of that deep involvement would be observable by the human senses and the instruments we have built to increase the power of these sense.” (Stenger 2009, 38)

Another common argument is that God could choose to hide his presence if he so chooses. Victor Stenger shows how this is would both be a logical fallacy and inconsistent with an omnibenevolent God but again I refer the reader to the original text.

Religious apologists have often resorted to pseudo-science or wrong information to back their claims such as when Dinesh D’Souza tried to dismiss Stenger’s claim that the universe is “uncaused” and “emerged from nothing” and quotes David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian) to back him up. As Stenger retorts: “Hume can be excused from not knowing quantum mechanics in 1754; but D’Souza cannot be excused in 2007, over a century since it’s discovery.”  (Ibid.)

This is an example of Believers basing their beliefs and claims on facts that have long been disproved and falsified or on out-dated models of reality (politicians also favour this strategy). This lends no credence to their views but rather highlights the need for better education of our populations and the need to put a stop to the dissemination of fallacious religious propaganda over established scientific fact.

Finally, to bury the argument that New Atheist “fanaticism” can be in any way compared to religious fanaticism. Atheists trusts in science which is described thus by Victor Stenger in “New Atheism” (p. 15):

A good scientist does not approach the analysis of evidence with a mind shut like a trap door against unwelcome conclusions. If and when anyone finds evidence for the existence of God, gods, or the supernatural that stand up under the same stringent tests that are applied in science to any claimed new phenomenon, with no plausible natural explanations, then honest atheists will have to become at least tentatively believers.

So in essence it may be fair to say that atheists are indeed fanatical: fanatical about evidence and in this we do differ from most religious (except the “culturally religious” who respect the traditions but do not necessarily accept any unproven tenets or claims of their religion).

Also note that interpreting things around you through the scientific method makes you anti-dogmatic by definition as dogma consists of assertions and beliefs that are unproven or are held to be true regardless of evidence to the contrary.

The below description of the scientific worldview should further highlight that it cannot be considered a “faith-system” competing with religions:

Science is a methodical system for acquiring knowledge about nature, about how the universe works, about the characteristics of reality.
It is systematic and logical - based on ideas, experiments, and observations that are testable, repeatable, predictive, and disprovable. It is also self-critical and self-correcting, and therefore progressive. It is the best thing we have for discovering the things we need to know about ourselves and our environment.

It does not presume a designer or any kind of supernatural entity.

Fundamentally, the only assumption made in science is that there is only one reality - one, unique truth that can be known about any particular phenomenon or process. There are things that are unknown (and may forever be unknown), but not things that are unknowable. (Unknown poster on message-board).

I invite anyone to show how insisting on evidence for claimed phenomena will not lead to a better world than failing to do so rather than taking any claim, particularly extraordinary claims, at face value.

So, in a way, perhaps we are trying to claim the moral high ground? And perhaps we should? Join me in the final instalment on this topic…

NEW ATHEISM: Some misunderstandings

I’ve stopped posted on this Blog mainly due to time constraints, but a recent discussion on Facebook brought up some points on the so-called “New Atheism”.

Defining New Atheism – the starting point

Let me start by addressing the term New Atheism which is very important in the context of the discussion of the points brought up. I believe these to be incongruent to the facts, yet they were raised by a fellow atheist. This is not new:

Not all nonbelievers – atheists, agnostics, humanists, or freethinkers – have been happy with the approach taken by the new atheists, especially our unwillingness to take a benign view of moderate religion. They would like to maintain good relations with the religious community , especially with regard to the public acceptance of science….While new atheists sympathise with these concerns, we do not consider them as serious as the even greater dangers imposed by the irrational thinking associated with religion. (Stenger 2009, 14-15).

Stenger goes on to quote geneticist Gerry Coyne’s view that the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science forms part of the former and religion part of the latter.

We do we think our thoughts have relevance when some like Stephen J. Gould have claimed that science and religion are “non-overlapping magisteria”:

“We agree with most reviewers that Gould’s interpretation is incorrect and amounts to a redefinition of religion as “moral philosophy” . Religions make statements about all kinds of phenomena that are legitimate parts of science, such as the origin of the universe and the evolution of life. Even the principles of morality are subject to scientific investigation since they involve observable human behaviour. Furthermore, we do not see morality as god-given but rather as the result of humanity’s own social development. (Ibid, 14)

Finally, Stenger (Ibid, 15) explains the critical stance of New Atheism:

“Perhaps the most unique position of New Atheism is that faith, which is belief without supportive evidence, should not be given the respect, even deference, it obtains in modern society. Faith is always foolish and leads to many of the evils of society. The theist argument that science and reason are also based on faith is specious. Faith is belief n the absence of supportive evidence. Science is the belief in the presence of supportive evidence. And reason is just the procedure by which humans ensure that their conclusions are consistent with the theory that produced them and with the data that test those conclusions.”

Sadly, we should not even need to define atheism as Sam Harris sharply points out:

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."  (Harris 2007).

Thankfully, nonbelief is the fastest growing and either second or third largest “belief system” so things are moving in the right direction.

 

Point 1: Atheist fanaticism as bad as religious?

Note the original points have been slightly rewritten here for clarity, if the original author feels misrepresented, please leave a comment to clarify:

You people still don’t understand that you are as fanatical as the theists that you keep writing about. I am a atheist myself but with the wisdom, and without the arrogance to preach that my idea is the right one.

Firstly, its important to understand that atheism unlike theism has no “ideas” associated to it, it simply defines a person as not believing in the proposition of God or a god.

Secondly, if you browse definitions of “fanatic”  and “fanatical” you find the word “irrational” embedded and this is the crucial difference between proponents of New Atheism and believers:

• having an extreme, irrational zeal or enthusiasm for a specific cause
• Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. .
• a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill

There are other more benign definitions of fanatical which generally amount to being “excessive” or “extreme” in support of your views and beliefs.

New Atheism, by the definition given in the earlier section, is critical and rational, so we need to accept that those elements of fanaticism cannot apply to it. This leaves the question whether we are “excessive”, “extreme”, “overzealous” etc. in our views.

What is more relevant, however, is whether our views are dangerous for if not an excessive enthusiasm for them will not cause any harm, unlike those of religion.

However, let us not be fooled into accepting a moral relativism that claims all beliefs as being equal. As Sam Harris’ has often stated in debates: We can measure what beliefs are must conducive to the welfare of human beings (a thesis which can be fully explored by the interested reader in “The Moral Landscape”).

We are seen as “insensitive” for telling believers that they are fooling themselves. New atheists have good reasons not to be quiet, and few sum it up better than Sam Harris:

“Patrick Bateson tells us that it is “staggeringly insensitive” to undermine the religious beliefs of people who find these beliefs consoling. I agree completely. For instance: it is now becoming a common practice in Afghanistan and Pakistan to blind and disfigure little girls with acid for the crime of going to school. When I was a neo-fundamentalist rational neo-atheist I used to criticise such behaviour as an especially shameful sign of religious stupidity. I now realise – belatedly and to my great chagrin – that I knew nothing of the pain that a pious Muslim man might feel at the sight of young women learning to read….” (Stenger 2009, 78-79).

Point 2: Dogma and Religion

“Dogma is not inherent to religion but to faith.”

“I am an atheist and yes I am religious.”

Religion without faith is not religion by any common definition of the word or any definition that most religious would recognise. A quick web search of the term “religion” will show the word “belief” and “supernatural” propping up repeatedly, but even sociologist Phil Zuckerman admits in his book “Society without God” that defining religion has proven notoriously difficult over the years.

He goes on to offer his own regardless, and it is instructive: “Religion refers to the concepts, rituals, experiences, and institutions that humans construct based upon their belief in the supernatural, otherwordly or spiritual. For me, it is the supernatural element that is the key. I agree with Stark and Bainbridge that “a religion lacking supernatural assumptions is no religion at all…for something to be “religious”, there must be an element of supernatural, otherwordly or spiritual belief. (Zuckerman 2008, 153-154)

Zuckerman goes on to define the “cultural religion” he observed in Scandinavia:

“cultural religion is the phenomenon of people identifying with historically religious traditions, and engaging in ostensibly religious practices, without truly believing in the supernatural content thereof.”

It’s helpful to employ the new term rather than attempting to redefine the existing. Obviously, New Atheism and atheism in general have no quarrel with culturally religious people and it would be possible to be both and atheist and “culturally religious” whereas it is an oxymoron to claim to be both atheistic and religious without engaging in some serious rhetorical gymnastics.

Point 3:

“And where is the proof that fanatics are acting in ways that is consistent with the teachings of the religion or philosophy? Don’t turn the preaching of a few into a religion.”

Firstly, I will answer this as it pertains to religious philosophy and not philosophy in general. Non-religious philosophy has in some cases led to dogmatism, but these would be exceptions and are outside the scope of this discussion.

In the End of Faith Sam Harris shows convincingly how “Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance,"  in other words, in order not to be a fanatic you need to apply the basic human values you already have and wilfully ignore the teachings of your religion, we’ll see why below.

Let’s start with the sources of religious teachings: In general holy books and priests (or other holy men) who interpret them.

Let’s begin with the Bible or the Q’uran, and you will find most of the practices fanatics are engaged in positively recommended, to give a sampling:

• If a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).
• Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lyingwith him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves (Deuteronomy, Numbers 38:18)
• …ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. For thou shalt worship no other god… (Exodus 34: 13-17)
• Those that deny God’s revelations shall be sternly punished; God is mighty and capable of revenge” (Q’uran, 3:5)
• Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not (Q’uran 2:216)
• Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise” (Q’uran 4:55-56)

On a final note Leviticus 20 lists the following offences as meriting the death penalty: cursing your parents, committing adultery, making love to your stepmother or your daughter in law, homosexuality, marrying a woman and her daughter, bestiality.

This is just a taster for a fuller account I refer the reader to chapter 4 in the End of Faith, Chapter 7 in “The God Delusion” and chapters 7 through 9 in “God is Not Great”. A good summary of the eventual outcome of current religious faith in the US can be read in the chapter “Toward the Apocalypse” in Stenger’s “The New Atheism” (p. 53-57).

It need not be so, a few religions have more benign teachings, such as Jainism, again back to Harris:

Once again, we need look no further than the Jains: Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept. Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries, on the basis of a theologically defensible reading of the Bible. (Harris, 2007)

To summarise it, the actions of religious fanatics are perfectly consistent with the core dogmas that make up the major monotheistic religions.

When moderation occurs, it’s a result of not following the scriptures or the teachings as they are described, so why do you need religion in the first place, rather take Sam Harris’ advice from “Letter to a Christian Nation”:

Religious moderation is the direct result of taking scripture less and less seriously. So why not take it less seriously still? Why not admit the the Bible is merely a collection of imperfect books written by highly fallible human beings."

Tomorrow, I’ll continue this article series with a look at whether religion is inherently dogmatic, whether the statement “a lot of their assertions (red: religious’ people’s assertions) are provable false and must be discarded by religious people” is the product of a fanatical mind, and whether we “New Atheists” are just trying to occupy the “moral high ground” when remarking on religion and should rather just be content with the ideas and knowledge we hold.

I’ll be travelling over the weekend so join me for more on Monday…

ACTIVITY: Atheist Ireland Inaugural Meeting

The members of the atheist.ie website are holding the Inaugural Meeting of the proposed Atheist Ireland organisation in the Central Hotel on Exchequer Street in Dublin today.

I'm very impressed by both the initiative and the ideas listed for this organisation, and hope to be in attendance today for what should be a landmark day in the continuing striving for improvements of society.

Red: I eventually went for what was a stimulating day with like-minded people and I'm impressed with the activities and the news coverage the new organisation has created in the last two years. My one regret is that my running and work commitments simply don't currently allow more active support of this great and important organisation.

ATHEISM: Not a Religion, Not a Replacement

A claim atheists are often faced with is that without religion the world would sink into depravity and the source of this depravity would be atheism which is, in their logic, just another religious belief (inferior to theirs) and that tyrannical and genocidal regimes such as Mao's China, Stalin's Soviet Union, and Hitler's German Reich are caused by the purported Atheism of these three political leaders (North Korea is less commonly used these days after many religious people realised that the president of the country is the dead father of the current ruler, basically making it a Death Cult to borrow the words of Christopher Hitchens).

The reason for this fallacious claim is simply a broad assumption among religious people that your religion defines your morality (science has widely disproved this, so I reject this assumption outright). Ergo, however, in the mind of many religious believers, atheism caused the morally deplorable behaviour of these "atheist leaders" in what they perceive as an absence of religiousity.

This ties in with the widespread notion among religious believers that Atheism forms a religion in its own right (Sam Harris puts this argument to rest in his book "End of Faith" which I won't repeat here, but I can sum it up with Sam's apt analogy that being an "atheist" carries just as much meaningfulness as a term as "non-astrologer" or "non-fascist").

Religion, by its original definition, is dogmatic in nature. A simple non-belief in the dogmatic claim of religion can therefore not be dogmatic in itself and cannot reasonable be called a religion (unless religions would like to term the insistence on rational inquiry and open debate "dogmatic" by which time the term would have diluted into meaninglessness).

THE SOURCE OF MORALITY

Going back to the original point, few atheists would claim that they gain their morality from atheism (indeed, they could not since atheism does not define any rules on ethics, a criticism often raised against it by religious people). Instead the general atheist will seek his morality somewhere else (in modern schools of thought such as humanism, or, as it regrettably happens, to religious and non-religious people alike, in other forms of dogmatism such as Nazism, Stalinism, capitalism and so on).

So when religious people claim that Atheism caused Mao, Stalin and Hitler, to behave in their morally reprehensible manner, they are making a faulty conjecture (that Hitler paid lipservice to his Roman Catholic faith would sidetrack the discussion, but is an interesting anecdote for gauging the claims of his "atheism").

When an atheist points out that witch burnings, anti-contraception laws, suicide bombings, and the blocking of stem cell research are caused by religions there is no flaw in their conjecture: the very religious books that are claimed to contain the word of the Creator (in which the religous professedly believe) either support or directly recommends all of the above practices. Is there any more logical or rational conclusion to reach than that religion causes people to carry out these acts?

If you examine the example of Stalin in a similar way, the flaws of the analogy become obvious. Take "ban on contraception is caused by religion" and compare it to "gulags and political inquisition was caused by Atheism". In the first case, you have a lot of evidence to support your claim (e.g. the Bible widely makes it clear that the creator of the Universe considers most of your sexual activities a Sin unless its with an eye on procreation, and then only if you've performed the ritual of marriage beforehand). In the second case, would most of us not accept the claim that "gulags and political inquisition was caused by Stalinism" as more valid? Certainly the dogmatic beliefs of the Soviet state and the blind obedience to Stalin (replace with "God" as you please) was the more likely cause?

Also, historically, is there any likelihood that atheism influenced Stalin in any way? I am yet to see evidence of this (in fact, it's quite clear he was not oppposed to dogmatism, unlike atheism. Stalinist Russia did not suffer because of an overabundance of rational inquiry and free discourse).

THE VACUUM LEFT BY RELIGION

So with this argument laid to rest, I would like to turn to a more interesting argument that some of the more formidable religious thinkers have turned to when they had the above pointed out to them: That the absence of religion caused a vacuum of morality that allowed Stalinism to flourish. Now, ignoring the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church continued to survive within the Soviet state, this is at least a point that merits examination.

"Would people, with their religion removed, inevitable turn to other pseudo-religious dogmas, such as Stalinism?" Possibly, and this is just exchanging one dogma for another and clearly undesirable (sometimes worse, but how do we start to quantify when we list the crimes of Stalinism against those of religion over the years? Does it even really matter?).

The first question religious people should ask themselves is, who would be most likely to replace one dogma with another. The people who have been insisting one open debate and rational discourse all along (e.g. most atheists) or people who have been used to a more dogmatic worldview (e.g. many religious people). Should the obvious answer to this question not discredit the argument that atheism causes morally deficient societies such as Stalinist Russia, Hitler's Germany, or the necrocracy that is North Korea?

BEYOND RELIGION

Atheism does not offer any new solutions, it simply demands the removal of certain problems that exist in the world (those caused by dogmatism). Once that is out of the way its up to all of us to figure out together where to move from there. In Humanism we already have one solution that would offer an improvement on the existing status quo. And if we can move beyond our religious beliefs, this process of improvement could become an ongoing process leading us closer to that undefined point of "ultimate morality" (which may or may not exist, but in any case it would be possible to scientifically approximate it instead of staying stagnant).

Compare a situation in the future when our society has moved beyond Consumerism (that means putting your wants before your needs). Would you expect an outcry to keep Consumerism simply because of the "vacuum" it would create now that people don't drive themselves to distress because they focus their lives on wanting ever more things they don't need while at the same time losing the time to meet the actual needs that they have (a thrilling account of this can be found in Oliver James' "Affluenza").

You could build a case for Consumerism much like you could for religion e.g.:

1. It makes people "happy", that is, "it's useful" (this builds on a rather dubious definition of happiness that I will leave for a later philosophical discussion so as not to stray too far off point).

2. It gives people hope (in this case hope of becoming "rich" or "getting that new car" instead of "for life after death" or "some deeper meaning to my life")

3. It helps build communities (undoubtedly true, but what communities? Healthy communities?)

4. It creates shared values (true again, but shall we examine these values?)

In the face of such arguments, how many people would be opposed to doing something about Consumerism if it was seen to cause widespread propagation of sexual diseases, delay critical scientific research, cause Consumerist wars in many places in the world, and prompt fundamentalist consumers to fly planes into the buildings of anyone opposed to their particular branch of Consumerist views? Would we hesitate and demand an alternative be presented or insist that the world would plunge into chaos without the pacifier of Consumerism? Consider it, just for a moment!

So let us move beyond the argument that Atheism is a religion and start discussing the options for a new improved society beyond religion.

LETTER: An Atheist’s Tale Part 1 – An open letter to Professor Dawkins

First, thank you for writing The God Delusion, after having considered myself a staunch atheist for most of my life, I had slipped into agnosticism for a number of years, and your book, along with Sam Harris’ equally excellent publications, finally confounded my own conviction in my atheism (or as I now prefer non-theism).

Since my earliest memory of childhood, I remember having a feeling towards religion that I can only describe today as ranging from outright aversion to uneasiness. Having grown up in generally secular Denmark (a country that has sadly not yet divided Church and State constitutionally), I still had the misfortune of being subjected to Old Testament reading throughout “Christianity Class” in Primary School (which gave way to Religion, a mandatory subject in Secondary and High School, atheism was not discussed).

I always had an intuitive feeling that “something was wrong”. We can still only speculate on the precise nature of intuition, but if you believe the theory that it is a manifestation of knowledge from your subconscious making itself heard in the conscious mind. As a bookish child, I had read much about dinosaurs, the solar systems etc. at a relatively early age, and perhaps the feeling of inherent wrongness in the teachings of Christianity was created by a subconscious conflict between the facts I had learned from science and the facts presented to me in Christianity Class.
My background was not religious, both my parents had been confirmed, because, as they would both explain to me later: “That was just something you did.” While my mother could be described as a spiritualist and still finds some comfort in the Church, my father had left the Church early and has never given any thought to either religion nor to atheism since (at least not actively).

By the time my own communion came up, I had grown into a staunch atheist, but also sadly somewhat of a polarising figure as I still had a very vehement mechanistic scientific worldview, utterly disquieting to religious people around me (what I today find my more mature worldview seems to cause less consternation, if just as little actual impact).

In a class of 27, 5 opted not to be confirmed (one was a Jehova’s Witness), myself among them. It was not a decision that was met with universal understanding, and despite my parent’s being atheist, it did mean waving farewell to a big party, and more importantly for a 13-year-old, a lot of money from well-wishing relatives.

Today, I am glad I held firm, and stayed to my convictions. It caused many social confrontations, as I took an aggressive stance and would cordially accept invitations to celebrations, but only under the condition that I would not attend the Church part. This meant missing parts of events like my sister’s confirmation, and the baptism of a good friend’s first child. Again, this raised eye-brows, but Denmark being relatively secular, nothing more.

Years of discussion with religious friends followed and often I would find my arguments trumped by the arguments Sam Harris’ presents to so well in the beginning of his book. I don’t know if it was this, or a slight temporary conviction in relativism, that had me fade into agnosticism, but once I picked up the God Delusion and “End of Faith”, I finally saw the arguments supporting what I had always believed to be true, and, more importantly, solid logical and rational refutations of the standard religious apologist points.

It’s ironic that another book of more spiritual nature (I would belong in the camp of atheists in which Sam Harris has often placed himself in his talks: the atheists who have a keen interest in spiritualism), convinced me further of the demonising effect religion has upon human culture.
I read with great interest the “Power of Now” and “A New Earth – Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose” by Ulrich Tolle, a graduate in languages, philosophy and literature from University of London (he is more commonly known under his alias “Eckhart Tolle”, a name no doubt chosen in honour of “Meister Eckhart” the 13th century German theologian, philosopher, and mystic, who was tried for heresy by the Franciscan-led Inquisition but died before his verdict could be announced.

While the neo-spiritual nature of Ulrich Tolle’s works may be off-putting to some rational thinkers, the core principle’s championed in his books is sound: true happiness is achieved through a disidentification from your thoughts and emotions helping you to transcend “your ego”, that is the false identification with forms and labels (such as body, mind, social roles, material possessions, religion, dislikes, nationality and so on).

He goes on in “A New Earth” to outline the issues that a lack of this disidentification with our egos causes in the world today, and when I read this, I was struck by the irony that a deeply spiritual work like this so clearly highlights that religion is currently the strongest identifier we have, and thus the most powerful barrier to a world in which people have reached a new level of self-awareness, broken down the wall of separation between individuals, and transcended petty superficial differences in favour of our deeper interconnectivity (that we are all connected, even at the quantum-physical level is a theory now proposed with great conviction by visionary thinker “Ervin Laszlo” in “Science and the Akashic Field” and “The Re-Enchantment of the Cosmos” and is not an idea unique to spirituality).

Indeed with Eckhart Tolle, Ervin Laszlo, and the great scientific minds of the 21st century, an amalgamation of spirituality and science is at hand that fills me with some hope that religion will be eradicated in the process and replaced by a new non-dogmatic worldview.

Thus convinced that my earliest instincts had been right, I once again abandoned any pretense of agnosticism and became a fully fledged atheist, if not an ardent anti-theist.

To be continued...

ANNOUNCEMENT: Opening

This is my third blog, my first two being dedicated to my personal journey of being an expatriated Dane living in Ireland, while the first follows my favourite hobby: hill running.

This Blog, I hope will have a more serious slant, and will focus on the Edge of Reason, e.g. the latest development within our scientific community.

My main focus will be one my favourite author Ervin Laszlo and his postulated "Quantum Shift" (which I aptly named the Blog after to ensure I could get a name that was not already taken!), as well as the major threat to reason in our society today: religious and other superstitous beliefs.

At the vanguard of this threat stands men such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, as well as the active nontheists, often labelled "militant atheists" by religious apologists. A great deal of my focus here will be to simply promote their latest works, review their books, and keep people up to date with the latest developments on our continuing mission to secure a secularisation of society and attack on science that is now on-going throughout our societies.

Finally, I will also follow political developments that I find interesting or relevant, especially looking to sober commentators such as Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal.

It will take me some time to get this up and running, but if you want to debate any points made here, your comments are most welcome. The only thing I cannot guarentee is agreement.

I also owe it to readers to steal Sam Harris' usual opening apology and say that I do not mean to offend anyone's views in particular by the writings on this site. If I bring up political, anti-religious, or scientific views that you find offensive to yourself, I ask two things:

1. I am genuinely concerned about the future of the world unless we can establish a society where any kind of irrational belief (including religion) cannot be freely attacked without fear or repercussions and where people who hold this beliefs are not asked to explain them, and marginalised from positions of power because of them

2. Realise that you are not your beliefs, this is a delusion (and a self-destructive one at that). Nothing I say or do can take anything away from you, nor can it add to you. All you can say with absolute confidence is "I am", nothing more, so personal offensive is unnecessary and illogical.

So with this opening statement, welcome to the new Blog, and please allow me some time to get it up and running.